What, they thought that by reducing refinances to 80% they were going to increase this market? Seriously?Of course now that refinancing is down 81% they have to increase the premium so they don't lose profits. This helps consumers how?

for years cmhc has raked in billions in insurance premiums while the markets rose and little chance at paying claims,once the market corrected itself and some claims were realized cmhc finally decides it probably shouldn't be in the business? How convenient!

It is very convenient. Funny how they wouldn't allow a person to refi their own home over 80% but buy your neighbours house and move to get 95%. Costs you land transfer tax which is of course payable to the government. Crooks! Great opportunity for Genworth and Canada Guarantee!! We should all boycott cmhc. Remember to port your fees if you move and are already a client!

CMHC is a cash cow. Clients pay more because government changed the rules. Government choices have led to reduced options and the people who need the most help cannot get it. Government lets consumer debt build up with no new rules - payday loans, 0 payments for 1 yr, 0% financing over 7 years. Consumer debt creates the problem and home equity used to be the solution. So rather than changing the rules on consumer debt, government deletes a tool.

These new mortgage rules have also negatively effected those who want to take an ex-spouse or investment partner off of title with high ratio mortgages.

Very few lenders allow an "enhanced transfer program" to accomplish this; which further reduces consumer choice.

I would like to see the government take an active roll in regulating unsecured debt (credit cards and lines of credit), rather than tightening refinance rules.

How often do we see clients pull money out of their house for anything other than to pay off unsecured debt. Personally, I'd say 80% or more of the refinances I do are to pay out unsecured debt... the remainder are doing ETO's for investment purchases. That however, is not the norm.

Maybe if the banks and credit card company lobbyists weren't paying for most politicians campaigns, we would see meaningful reform, instead of trapping Canadians into revolving debt at high interest rates.

investment partners or spouses can still be removed from title in high ratio circumstance. CMHC looks at it like a sale of interest.

Agreed that unsecured debt needs to be further regulated. classic are the do not pay programs that many consumers find themselves in a bind at the end of the day when all the interest is accelerated if the debt has not been paid off.